EDRIElection Dispute Resolution Index

§ 51 of the Saeima Election Law enumerates standing — the submitter of a list of candidates and a nominated candidate may appeal the Central Election Commission's result-approval decision to court; § 35¹ extends the same standing to contesting the vote-counting report.

“The submitter of the list of candidates and the nominated candidate have the right to appeal to the court”

§ 54 of the Saeima Election Law specifies the court of original jurisdiction — election-result and candidate-registration appeals go to the Regional Administrative Court or the Department of Administrative Cases of the Supreme Court Senate.

“the application shall be submitted to the Regional Administrative Court”

§ 51 sets the filing deadline — an appeal against the result-approval decision must be lodged within three working days of the decision; § 35¹ sets the same three-working-day window for contesting the vote-counting report.

“the decision of the Central Election Commission on the approval of election results within three working days”

§ 54 codifies a burden-of-proof rule — the burden lies with the participants to the administrative proceedings — and § 37¹/§ 45³ set the materiality standard for overturning a result (violations that have affected the distribution of seats); detailed evidentiary admissibility comes via the cross-referenced Administrative Procedure Law.

“The burden of proof shall lie with the participants to the administrative proceedings.”

§ 37¹ of the Local Government Council Election Law codifies a recount procedure — where a court finds outcome-affecting violations it revokes the result-approval and may assign the election commission to re-count the votes; § 45³ provides the parallel at the municipal-results level.

“to assign the local government election commission to re-count the votes”

§ 37¹ enumerates the recount trigger — a recount is ordered where a court, on an application, finds violations of law that have affected the distribution of seats; the trigger is an outcome-affecting violation rather than a margin threshold.

“such violations of law have been committed which have affected the distribution of the seats”

No matching sections in corpus (FTS returned 0 candidates) — concept not codified in this jurisdiction's election statute.

§ 45³ (and § 45⁵) codify the effect of a recount/contest finding — a court judgment finding outcome-affecting violations revokes the result-approval decision, and the Central Election Commission must order a re-count, repeated voting or repeated elections.

“shall revoke a decision on the approval of the election results of the relevant local government”

Latvia's results become official by a codified election-commission / Central Election Commission approval decision, and § 35¹ ties a three-working-day contest window to that decision; the surfaced sections do not, however, set a fixed statutory deadline for the approval itself.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: § 51(2) of the Saeima Election Law expressly provides that submitting an appeal to court does not suspend the operation of the result-approval decision — Latvia has no pre-certification stay; a contested result stands pending the court's ruling.